For reasons beyond me, there are those who believe that Genesis is myth. Many limit it to Genesis 1-11, which only confounds the problem. What makes Gen 11 myth but Gen 12 history? The language didn't change. The approach didn't change. And what "myth" includes "these are the generations of ..." (Gen 5)?
Worse, what does it say about the rest of the biblical authors? When God spoke at Sinai, He indicated, "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Exo 20:11), but we're expected to conclude that no such thing happened ... at all. When Jesus spoke about marriage, He quoted from Genesis 2 (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5), but Genesis 2 never really happened, right? Paul is quite clear that he believes in an historical Jesus and an historical Adam (Rom 5:12-15). He believed there was a God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness" (2 Cor 4:6). He believed there was an actual Adam and Eve who actually did things (2 Tim 2:13-14). Peter thought Noah was a real person (1 Peter 3:20). The author of Hebrews speaks of a "cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1) who encourage us in our faith. That cloud includes God's creation "by the word of God" (myth), Abel (myth), Enoch (myth), and Noah (myth). Good luck with that mythical cloud.
So is the Word of God to be trusted? I mean, isn't that whole "inerrancy of Scripture" thing a myth itself, made up out of whole cloth, a pure philosophical figment? Solomon didn't think so (Prov 30:5). Jesus didn't think so (Matt 5:18). Paul didn't think so (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible doesn't think so.
There is only one reason that people assume Genesis (especially 1-11) is myth. It is the same reason that they deny the inerrancy of God's Word. It is a fundamental distrust of the God who breathed it (2 Tim 3:16-17). This distrust begins with "That text doesn't say what I find acceptable" and ends with a denial of the text because of "Me". They succumb to "Science doesn't support it" which is nothing more than idolatry, an idolatry that doesn't begin with Science, but with "Me". The Church has always held that Genesis was not myth, but was historical narrative. Nothing in the language suggests otherwise. All of those who cite it afterward cite it not as myth, but as historical. If it is myth, those people, including Jesus, are wrong.
It may be that some genuine Christians believe the Bible is wrong at points, that Genesis is myth, that there are serious and systemic errors in the Bible. It may be that such Christians exist. But if they do, it is not because of the Bible; it's because of a prior commitment to not the Bible. You see, the authority and accuracy of the Bible is not rooted in the humans who wrote it or the Christians who defend it; it is rooted in the One who breathed it. If He has neither the ability nor wisdom to actually provide the Word of God for us, these Christians should probably reconsider. Where else can't we trust Him?
12 comments:
The least compelling argument I hear for genesis as myth is, “Because other myths exist from roughly the same time frame, Genesis must be myth.”. It’s clearly an assumption without factual basis.
The “They didn’t start to record “history in a modern fashion” until XYZ arbitrary date”, is also simply making assumptions.
I hear things like "Myth doesn't make it false" or that "They didn't record history that way" like you said. Neither helps the argument. When all of the rest of the writers of Scripture treat Genesis as history when it's actually myth, they are wrong and, therefore, the Bible is wrong ... including Jesus. And an arbitrary "They didn't do it that way" is, as you say, a simple assumption that denies the language and style of the book including the first 11 chapters and "They didn't do it that way" simply erases the idea that any of the Pentateuch was historical rather than mythical.
In other words, they're just not getting it.
The argument that science doesn't agree always bugs me. Modern science is viewing the data and interpreting it from a bias. We have to put assumptions into the equation because we're simply missing the data. Depending on your basis for assumptions will lead you to different conclusions. I once saw a documentary about why we don't find Israelites in Egypt when the Bible says they should be. The conclusion? The assumption that the system of dates prescribed over a hundred years ago are accurate. But the dates for the Egyptian kingdoms don't agree with the dates of other kingdoms of the same time. But an unwillingness to even examine the idea that those dates are wrong prevents different conclusions. Shifting the Egyptian dates to match the others then puts Israelites in Egypt in exactly the time the Bible says. (It's more in depth than that but it was like an hour long program). The assumptions of people prevent questioning the given date.
If we look in the other time direction, toward the distant future, how much stock should we put in science? As an example, astronomers say that Earth is going to be vaporized by the Sun expanding its bulk in a red giant phase in another 5 billion years.
Yes, David, the science argument has always bugged me. "We know how rocks are formed because we've made a good, educated guess," geologists will tell us, but, as it turns out, none of them was around to see it and newer events have produced the same results that they said would take millions of years, so why are we operating from that geological guess to a theological denial? Just an example. Assumptions are assumed and it is no longer allowed to question them. "I assume that God's Word is true." "Oh, no, that is an assumption we will not only question; we will deny." Seems reasonable to me (not).
“...an historical...”?
I'm not sure I understand the question Anon. We're not denying that science can be accurate and useful, only that one interpretation of incomplete data is valid. And, who cares what's going to happen in 5 billion years? Besides, plenty of other models say the Earth will be uninhabitable long before that happens. As for those specifics, I'd be suspect of that long of a prediction because, again, they are working on unprovable assumptions. As an example, they say that helium (I think) is leaking out of our atmosphere at a set rate, and that rate has been constant since the beginning of the Earth (their date somewhere in the tens of billions of years). Given that data, eventually the Earth will have no more natural helium. However, if the rate has been constant, and the Earth is the age they say it is, either this planet had more helium in it than would allow for the development of life, or we should already be out of helium. This should make us question certain assumptions made based off bias and a lack of information. If the rate is the amount they say it is, then we either question the assumptions or the data, only one is provable. But, noone is allowed to question the assumption, so we're left "believing" the conclusion because we're not given any other options. Besides, we can't even reliably predict the weather tomorrow, how can anyone put any stock in a prediction for 5 billion years?
While it is possible to use myth to communicate Truth, and it’s possible to accurately communicate actual events in various literary styles, the argument really is “Does Genesis accurately communicate actual events, regardless of literary style?”.
Clearly those who argue that Genesis is myth, are content with the ambiguity that this casts on the rest of scripture,
Ignoring or rationalizing how Jesus and others treat Genesis is just more picking and choosing based on preference not anything else.
Yes, Danny, "an historical". Who cares if it's right, right? :)
Interesting comment, David. When you have a moment, provide a link to a page on the topic you are bringing up. Helium is a product of heavy element fission, so maybe your source is saying that some calculation is to the effect that there was so much fission going on that it would have damaged any cells present on Earth's surface?
It was from a college class more than 10 years ago. The only data was that the helium was leaving our atmosphere at a given rate. The rest was simply a logical conclusion to the given data and the assumptions at play. The point wasn't about helium, but how biases form our conclusions, even about things as "concrete" as scientific data, or allowed to question the conclusion when there is insufficient data. Evolution is said to be the only possible answer for the data we have. But there is a lot of data to doesn't work with that conclusion, and that conclusion requires a predisposed belief that there is no God that can do the things He said He did. Only natural processes are allowed, and they all happened in the same way we see the happen today.
Noted. Thanks.
Post a Comment